Florida Shooters Network

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supr ... 42777.html


Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuit go forward
Associated Press MARK SHERMAN and DAVE COLLINS,Associated Press 16 hours ago
Reactions Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a survivor and relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can pursue their lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 26 people.

The justices rejected an appeal from Remington Arms, which argued it should be shielded by a 2005 federal law preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes.

The case is being watched by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and gun manufacturers across the country because it has the potential to provide a roadmap for victims of other mass shootings to circumvent the federal law and sue the makers of firearms.

The court's order allows the lawsuit filed in Connecticut state court by a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown, Connecticut, school on Dec. 14, 2012, to go forward.

The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the general public. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. Opponents of the suit contend that gunman Adam Lanza alone is responsible for killing 20 first graders and six educators. He was 20 years old.

"I support the Second Amendment and the right to own firearms and guns, but on the other hand there's reckless advertising and marketing," said Neil Heslin, whose son, Jesse Lewis, died in the shooting. "There should be accountability and responsibility for that."

The families' lawyer, Joshua Koskoff, said the next step will be the discovery phase in which Remington will be compelled to disclose certain internal company documents.

"The families are just universally happy with this result," he said. "They have wanted nothing more out of this case than to shed light on the conduct of the manufacturer of the weapon that was the source of taking the lives of their loved ones."

Messages seeking comment were left with lawyers for Remington Arms on Tuesday.

A leading gun industry group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which happens to be based in Newtown, said it was disappointed the Supreme Court declined to review the case but is confident Remington will win in the trial court.

"Nothing in Remington's advertising of these products connotes or encourages the illegal or negligent misuse of firearms," the group said in a statement. "We continue to feel sympathy toward the Sandy Hook victims, as NSSF is headquartered in Newtown, but Adam Lanza alone is responsible for his heinous actions."

Before the school shooting, Lanza shot his mother to death at their Newtown home. He killed himself as police arrived at the school. The rifle was legally owned by his mother.

The Connecticut Supreme Court had earlier ruled 4-3 that the lawsuit could proceed for now, citing an exemption in the federal law. The decision overturned a ruling by a trial court judge who dismissed the lawsuit based on the 2005 federal law, named the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The majority of justices in the state Supreme Court ruling, however, said it may be a "Herculean task" for the families to prove their case at trial.

The federal law has been criticized by gun control advocates as being too favorable to gun-makers. It has been cited by other courts that rejected lawsuits against gun-makers and dealers in other high-profile shooting attacks, including the 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting and the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings in 2002.

The National Rifle Association, 10 mainly Republican-led states and 22 Republicans in Congress were among those urging the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into the case and end the lawsuit against Remington.

Democratic lawmakers from Connecticut, including Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy and Rep. Jahana Hayes, said in a statement that the 2005 federal law needs to be repealed.

"For years, gun manufacturers have been allowed to operate with near-blanket immunity — producing weapons of war and marketing them to the masses with zero accountability," they said. "This critical victory reinforces the need for Congress to pass legislation repealing the gun industry's sweetheart immunity deal and unlocking the doors to justice for all victims of gun violence."

___

Collins reported from Hartford, Connecticut.

WOW! So If I take my GMC and run over a bunch of people I guess their families can sue GM then! F---ing crazy!!!

Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the case, US Supreme Court did not hear it. The US Supreme Court only takes a small number of cases annually, generally once different circuits have ruled oppositely with similar facts.

This case is alleging that the advertising of the firearm was the cause of the shooting(s). It was ruled that the group could sue about the advertising, as the immunity is related to the use of the firearm itself, not the marketing campaign. I don't know much about Remington's marketing, but I don't think inciting violence against children was a part of it.

Taco wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:46 am Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the case, US Supreme Court did not hear it. The US Supreme Court only takes a small number of cases annually, generally once different circuits have ruled oppositely with similar facts.

This case is alleging that the advertising of the firearm was the cause of the shooting(s). It was ruled that the group could sue about the advertising, as the immunity is related to the use of the firearm itself, not the marketing campaign. I don't know much about Remington's marketing, but I don't think inciting violence against children was a part of it.

So wouldn't that make the advertising agency liable instead of Remington?

Taco is correct...when the lawsuit was first filed, the media made it a point to show some of the magazine ads and marketing videos Rem produced. They were heavy militarism and Ramboism.
Not cool...

While it's a shame that Remington is getting caught in the middle, I'm kind of glad anytime a marketing scam is being publicly reviled as a bad example.

Look at how some cars are advertised. Of course, they have the disclaimer, “professional driver on a closed course.” I’m not a lawyer, but it sounds like this is a precedent. Any car crash, sue the manufacturer. Not sarcasm, but I mean it seriously. The large corporations will throw us under the bus if they, or their consultants, feel it will improve their image and sell, sell, sell.

Bmup wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:42 pm So wouldn't that make the advertising agency liable instead of Remington?

Are the channels displaying the ad also liable? Is Ford liable for the drunk driver who kill someone crossing a street (16 die everyday from crossing a street in the US vs 1.1 death per day for rifles). ? Is the university and even more the teacher or even better the parents of the teacher who taught medicine to a medical doctor responsible for the negligent death of a patient (I believe anywhere from 250 to 440k death per year due to medical errors, making it the the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer) liable ?

This is becoming insane.

Oh yeah, we need to get the right people in the SCOTUS... Yep, that worked didn't it? (eye roll)...

Allme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:35 am Oh yeah, we need to get the right people in the SCOTUS... Yep, that worked didn't it? (eye roll)...

Unfortunately, you’re right. I’m remembering Souter, as just one example. And, I had concerns about Kavanaugh, with Souter in mind, which may yet prove your point. He got favor because of the circus of a hearing. Makes me want to dust off my tinfoil hat.

I always had reservations about Kavannaugh because of his past jurisprudence history and the fact that he was/is pro PATRIOT Act, which is probably the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history.

That being said, he was still better than the alternative... Which is truly depressing.